Climate Bill: Kerry, Graham and Lieberman’s Compromise Plan

Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman outlined the very bare framework of their compromise climate bill, an effort to jumpstart the Senate’s stalled legislation on energy and global warming.

Details are sketchy: The compromise legislation aims for a 17% reduction in U.S. emissions over the “near term,” which Sen. Lieberman indicated means 2020. That’s a little less than the current Senate bill and a little more than the House bill that passed in June.

So much for details. The rest of the compromise bill is still a mystery—a concession, the lawmakers said, to committee chairmen who will actually shape final legislation. Sen. Kerry said the “specific language” could be put together in January and February. Here’s a bit more on the “framework.”

About all that could be gleaned from the senators’ press conference is that the new bill is cast first and foremost as a vehicle for jobs creation and energy independence. Maybe that’s the key to getting broader support in the Senate.

Speaking of which, Sen. Liberman said “there are well over 60 votes in play in the Senate, not that we have 60 votes yet.”

Another point: All three senators stressed that the compromise bill supports an “all of the above” energy package. That means, in Sen. Kerry’s telling, “renewable energy, clean coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy.”

Sen. Graham, not surprisingly, inverted the order: “Nuclear power will be embraced in a way it’s never been embraced before. So all the Americans who believe nuclear power needs to be part of the solution, we represent your best hope,” he said.

Sen. Liberman says the new approach is a rejection of the “command and control” approach to regulating greenhouse-gas emissions embodied in the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent ruling.

He also sent a message to all the delegates gathered at the big climate summit in Copenhagen: “Climate-change legislation is alive and well in the Senate,” he said.

Comments (5 of 7)

New nuclear power is an excellent long term solution. If all political players were to get behind nuclear today, we'd see new power coming on line in about 4 - 5 years. We'll be out of electricity way before then. No new coal plants or expansions of existing coal plants are possible until EPA finishes CO2 regs under CAA or the Senate decides to price carbon. This looks to be two years out and after that it will take another 2 years to build new or expand existing coal plants. We'll be short electicity before then. Where will our new electricity come from before the new nuclear and clean coal plants start producing?

1:02 pm December 11, 2009

Kenneth Haapala wrote :

For decades, Big Green has raised tens of millions demonizing nuclear power. They will not change and oppose nuclear power with every trick imaginable. Let us see the plants on line first, then talk cap-and-trade.

10:21 am December 11, 2009

Econguy wrote :

The key word here is sketchy. That word will best describe it until the final wee hours of the morning before the vote so as not to stray into anything like transparency. We will wake up to the new gasoline tax after the smoke clears and no one will call it such until then. Actually the blame will be assigned to the the greed of refiners and not the legislation or its despicable handlers. KerryGate is upon us.

5:22 am December 11, 2009

Lisa P wrote :

Yes, more energy jobs are needed, but we don't need cap-and-trade legislation to go with it. New nuclear plants can't get loans in the private sector because you can't rely on the governement to not change the rules. There's a big fat nuclear fuel recycling plant that was built in South Carolina and never started up because Jimmy Carter banned recycling of nuclear fuel AFTER the plant was built. The Democrats wouldn't deliver an "all of the above" energy package when gas was $4 a gallon, but they'll do it now? I'll believe it when I see it. Graham just wants some nuclear power plants in South Carolina. The government proved with the Stimulus, the mortgage plan, cash for clunkers, etc. that they cannot create new jobs cheaply. When will people ever learn from history? Everything that's going on now is Jimmy Carter all over again. Energy secretary Chu, when asked about nuclear fuel recycling, told congress that he would commission a blue ribbon panel to evaluate it. Every administration since Carter has done this, and they've all come up with the same conclusion.

7:44 pm December 10, 2009

jfarmer9 wrote :

When looking at job creation one will find that the creation of new nuclear power plants will produce great middle class jobs. These great jobs are created in both the building and running of a new nuke plant. This can not be said for the building of solar panels and wind mills parts which will be done in China in order to keep prices down.

Note this comment by Jim Rodgers the CEO of Duke Energy:

“In an operation of a nuclear plant, there [are] .64 jobs per megawatt. The wind business–and we have a very large wind business–is .3 jobs per megawatt. In the solar business–and we’re installing solar panels–it’s about .1. But the difference in the jobs is quite different, because if you’re wiping off a solar panel, it’s sort of a minimum wage type of job, [with] much higher compensation for nuclear engineers and nuclear operators. If our goal is to rebuild the middle class, nuclear plays a key role there, particularly if coal is out of the equation.”

Viva the Nuclear Renaissance,

Jfarmer9

About Environmental Capital

Environmental Capital provides daily news and analysis of the shifting energy and environmental landscape. The Wall Street Journal’s Keith Johnson is the lead writer. Environmental Capital is led by Journal energy reporter Russell Gold, and includes contributions from other writers at the Journal, WSJ.com, and Dow Jones Newswires. Write us at environmentalcapital@wsj.com.